Another reason to claim Social Security at 62

My father literally dropped dead on the golf course at age 73, so I am leery about waiting until 70 to collect.
And the purchaser of a friend's dental practice just dropped dead in his mid-40's. My wife went at 54 and my mother at 87 after taking SS at 62. Just 'anecdata', and I can contribute more, although it's no more informative and helpful in the decision than anyone else's examples.

I'll take mine at 65-66 as I am unmarried, have 2 kids I want to leave money to, and living off accumulated savings/investments

The best we can do is make an educated guess, hope we made the right call, and live without complaint if we didn't.
 
This is what AI says:
If you have a family history of shorter life expectancy, it might make sense to consider claiming Social Security benefits earlier. Here's why:

When you claim Social Security benefits before your full retirement age (which is typically between 66 and 67, depending on your birth year), you'll receive smaller monthly payments, but over a longer period. Conversely, if you wait until age 70, you'll get larger monthly payments, but fewer of them1.

If your family history suggests a shorter life expectancy, you might end up with more total benefits by claiming earlier, even though each payment is smaller. However, it's important to consider other factors, such as your health, financial needs, and whether you have a spouse who might rely on survivor benefits.
 
My grandfather dropped dead in Yellowstone at age 55. My Dad claimed early at 62 for similar reasoning. He's still collecting his pretty small benefit at age 88.

The suboptimal decision in his case was not critical to his financial pictuure. Still, I am going to bet on the larger statistical longevity pool / data from SS and elsewhere rather than on one or two data points in my immediate family.
I tend to think hereditary information is better than general population, but I guess I could be wrong.

Flieger
 
I tend to think hereditary information is better than general population, but I guess I could be wrong.

Flieger
Yes. That is why the doctor asks you about your family medical history.
 
I tend to think hereditary information is better than general population, but I guess I could be wrong.

Flieger
The thing is you inherited a random selection of genes from two different parents so you don’t really know…….

And some conditions are more hereditary than other.
 
The amount of SS is theoretically the same regardless of when you start. Assuming you live a statistically normal life span, earn a standard ROI, and are not married. If any of those things are different for you, adjust your start date accordingly.
 
+1. I'm pretty much an average player and if data suggest that either DW or I will collect that larger age 70 benefit into our 90s.
 
The thing is you inherited a random selection of genes from two different parents so you don’t really know…….

And some conditions are more hereditary than other.
Correct, but you also have your whole life to reflect on as additional data points. I know my body best.
 
Looking at SSA life expectancies for a Male born in 1963, still alive at 65, states 12.8 years (or 78). I generally see that a calculation shows breakeven at 81.

I have one parent (Mother) who died at 40 from cancer. My father just last year from Guillian-Barre syndrome at 86, perhaps from Shingles vaccine he had recently taken and was VERY healthy up until then, so likely would have lived longer. I still plan 67 for the survivor benefit, earlier if I MUST due to financial drivers.

Flieger
 
Although my belief is without much foundation, looking back few years and progress made by AI, chatGPT, Alphafold, etc.. I am expecting miracles in biology which may find cures for health problems like infections, cancers, ageing, may be lab grown organs. Even modest progress will put past SS break even, only hurdle is to be healthy for next 20 years.
 
Although my belief is without much foundation, looking back few years and progress made by AI, chatGPT, Alphafold, etc.. I am expecting miracles in biology which may find cures for health problems like infections, cancers, ageing, may be lab grown organs. Even modest progress will put past SS break even, only hurdle is to be healthy for next 20 years.
Yes, i think that will be great for those that are currently 30's, not so much for those currently 60's.

Flieger
 
I tend to think hereditary information is better than general population, but I guess I could be wrong.

Yes. That is why the doctor asks you about your family medical history.
My father died at 63, one of his 2 brothers died in his mid-60s, and the other reached about 70--all died of cardiac disease. My mother died in her early 70s, as did her parents--of cancers. I have discussed all this with my physician. I get an annual physical. I have had extra cardiac testing. I live a healthy lifestyle compared with my parents. I have voiced my concerns about family history to my physician, but he says he can find nothing that would suggest a lifespan shorter than statistically predicted. I plan to claim SS at 70.
 
Since the SS claiming decision is so much based on expected longevity, with ~80 the breakeven point assuming no time value of money, I thought that I would share the results for myself and DW of a longevity calculator from The American Academy of Actuaries and the Society of Actuaries Research Institute. We are both 69, never smoked and average health.

The calculator suggests that I will live to 86, DW to 88, one or the other of us to 92. Note that these are all well beyond the breakeven of ~80 (with no discounting for the time value of money).

Not the end all, but just another data point for consideration.


1732115854698.png
 
My father died at 63, one of his 2 brothers died in his mid-60s, and the other reached about 70--all died of cardiac disease. My mother died in her early 70s, as did her parents--of cancers. I have discussed all this with my physician. I get an annual physical. I have had extra cardiac testing. I live a healthy lifestyle compared with my parents. I have voiced my concerns about family history to my physician, but he says he can find nothing that would suggest a lifespan shorter than statistically predicted. I plan to claim SS at 70.
I hope your MD is right!
 
Waiting to collect SS would increase our income, but so would working one more year, or getting a side hustle. For me it's about having enough. We know what what we spend each year. My wife's pension and our SS income will more than cover our expenses. For us, starting SS at 62 for each of us reaches that goal (even with a 30% SS haircut). Income will decrease when one of us dies, but the surviving spouse will still have sufficient income for a comfortable life. Better to take SS early (which ends when we die) and preserve our savings (which we can pass on to our daughter or use for emergencies).
 
I tend to think hereditary information is better than general population, but I guess I could be wrong.

Flieger

I've read somewhere in the past that only a small percentage (less than 10%) of your life expectancy is based on your parent's genetic contribution. Health/diet/exercise habits, education, financial status, accidents, suicide, and contagious disease, as well as medical advances during your lifetime, contribute far more in aggregate.

As a minor example, my aforementioned grandfather was obese and probably would have survived another 30 years had he either lost 100 pounds or used a CPAP. The likely cause of death was heart attack as a result of untreated sleep apnea.

I suppose hereditary diseases like sickle cell anemia or the aggressive breast cancer genes could be counterexamples. Thankfully I don't have any of those to deal with.
 
I hope your MD is right!
Me, too! I think his point is that while some hereditary diseases can be tested for, there are no genetic markers I could be tested for based on what I know of my family history, so all we have to go on are the results of the tests they are able to do. The nagging suspicion in the back of my mind is not based on any actual scientific evidence, and I am trying my best not to let it bias my decisions.
 
An example of you just never know how long you’ll live, so sometimes it makes sense to grab the brass ring while you can.

My father-in-law took his benefits at 62. He was in good health, with parents who lived long lives, but he liked the idea of having that guaranteed monthly check along with his pension.

Fast forward 18 years, and he had a stroke, followed by several smaller ones, some falls, and eventually dementia. By the time he passed, just shy of his 80th birthday, we realized that if he had waited to start his Social Security, he wouldn’t have collected as much.

It really reinforced that it’s a personal decision. Sure, delaying benefits means bigger checks, but if you don’t make it to that "break-even" age in your late 70s or 80s, it can end up being less advantageous. For him, taking it early was the right call—it gave him financial security and peace of mind during those earlier years when he was healthier.
 
My mom collected at 62 because she's fearful, even with longevity in the family at least the women. My grandmother just passed 96 her mom. But her brother died at 74 from cancer, as did the men in the family. But my uncle also took it at 62 because he was fearful. Turns out he was right. My mom i hope lives ot 96, but in case something should happen she has enough.
 
Of my two parents, four grandparents and eight great-grandparents, only one lived into their 80s.
 
An example of you just never know how long you’ll live, so sometimes it makes sense to grab the brass ring while you can.

My father-in-law took his benefits at 62. He was in good health, with parents who lived long lives, but he liked the idea of having that guaranteed monthly check along with his pension.

Fast forward 18 years, and he had a stroke, followed by several smaller ones, some falls, and eventually dementia. By the time he passed, just shy of his 80th birthday, we realized that if he had waited to start his Social Security, he wouldn’t have collected as much.

It really reinforced that it’s a personal decision. Sure, delaying benefits means bigger checks, but if you don’t make it to that "break-even" age in your late 70s or 80s, it can end up being less advantageous. For him, taking it early was the right call—it gave him financial security and peace of mind during those earlier years when he was healthier.

Even if you live longer taking it at age 62 lets you use that money to travel, etc. before you physically can't.

Which is what my in-laws did.

Like all the other retired dudes I've known, by the time dad was 70 he was firmly in the slow-go phase.
 
Back
Top Bottom